Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
This case arises from litigation between 3D Systems, Inc. (3DS) and defendants including Ben Wynne, with non-party Intrepid Automation (Intrepid) seeking to seal certain discovery materials. On April 16, 2026, 3DS filed a motion for sanctions against Intrepid alleging violations of a stipulated protective order and patent prosecution bar, accompanied by a motion to seal various exhibits. The court previously granted in part and denied in part sealing requests (Dkt. No. 1018), denying sealing of Exhibits 5 and 6 to the Farres Declaration because Intrepid had not joined the motion and 3DS relied solely on confidentiality designations. Separately, on May 28, 2026, 3DS filed a motion to compel and a motion to seal exhibits to the Vicente Declaration; the court denied sealing those exhibits because no party established good cause. Intrepid then filed the present renewed motion to seal (Dkt. No. 1042), now asserting good cause based on ITAR and EAR implications.
Intrepid's renewed motion targets four categories of documents: (1) portions of its objections and responses to 3DS's interrogatories (Exhibit 5 to the Farres Declaration); (2) portions of its amended responses to Evan Kuester's interrogatories (Exhibit 6 to the Farres Declaration); (3) a page of May 13, 2022 correspondence regarding Factory Acceptance Testing (Exhibit G to the Vicente Declaration); and (4) portions of the March 5, 2021 'LF Beta Proposal' (Exhibit I to the Vicente Declaration). Intrepid supports its motion with the Declaration of Noah Hansen (Dkt. No. 937), which was previously submitted in an application to close the courtroom for ITAR-related testimony. The motion is unopposed by 3DS.
The Court’s Holding
The court applied the 'good cause' standard, which governs discovery motions only tangentially related to the merits, requiring a particularized showing of specific prejudice or harm from disclosure. The court found Intrepid met this burden for the requested redactions. As to Exhibits 5 and 6 to the Farres Declaration, the court granted sealing of three and two photographs, respectively, accepting Intrepid's argument that they depict SpaceX component parts, manufacturing information, technical specifications, and tolerances potentially implicating ITAR and EAR, and noting the court previously closed the courtroom for such evidence during trial. The court cited TSI Inc. v. Azbil BioVigilant Inc. for the proposition that ITAR and EAR controlled information supports sealing.
Regarding the motion to compel exhibits, the court granted sealing of one page (Bates INTREP035287) of Exhibit G to the Vicente Declaration, containing May 13, 2022 correspondence about FAT testing with technical information on component tolerances. The court also granted sealing of two pages (Bates INTREP014553 and INTREP014555) of Exhibit I to the Vicente Declaration, which constitute portions of the 'LF Beta Proposal' characterized as a contract proposal between Intrepid and SpaceX for manufacturing SpaceX components. The court corrected Intrepid's misidentification of these pages as residing in Exhibit G, confirming they appear in Exhibit I. The Clerk of Court is ordered to file the specified documents under seal.
Key Takeaways
- The court applies the 'good cause' standard, not the higher 'compelling reasons' standard, to sealing requests for discovery motions tangentially related to the merits.
- A party must make a particularized showing of specific harm; mere confidentiality designations under a protective order are insufficient to establish good cause.
- Information implicating ITAR and EAR, such as technical specifications for rocket components, constitutes good cause for targeted redactions.
- Prior courtroom closure for ITAR/EAR evidence during trial supports subsequent sealing of related documentary evidence.
- The court will correct minor misidentifications of exhibit references (e.g., Exhibit G vs. Exhibit I) when the Bates numbers and document descriptions are clear.
Why It Matters
This order reinforces the Ninth Circuit's framework for sealing judicial records in the discovery context, emphasizing that the 'good cause' standard requires specific, articulated reasoning rather than boilerplate confidentiality claims. The decision illustrates how national security regulations (ITAR/EAR) can justify targeted redactions even in civil commercial litigation, particularly when the court has previously recognized the sensitivity of such information by closing proceedings. Practically, the ruling underscores that non-parties like Intrepid must affirmatively move to seal their own sensitive materials rather than rely on another party's motion or protective order designations alone.